Posted
by
timothyon Thursday February 16, 2012 @05:53PM
from the perfect-certainty-isn't-an-option dept.

ananyo writes with this snippet from Nature (for which this earlier Nature article is also background): "'The courthouse in L'Aquila, Italy, yesterday hosted a highly anticipated hearing in the trial of six seismologists and one government official indicted for manslaughter over their reassurances to the public ahead of a deadly earthquake in 2009. .... During the hearing, the former head of the Italian Department of Civil Protection turned from key witness into defendant, and a seismologist from California criticized Italy's top earthquake experts.' Lalliana Mualchin, former chief seismologist for the Department of Transportation in California, criticized the Italian analysis, which he says was based on a poor model. If the court agrees with Mualchin, the defendants could face up to 12 years in jail."

Guido Bertolaso, former head of the Department of Civil Protection [...] a few weeks ago a wiretap revealed that he had apparently set up the meeting to convey a reassuring message, regardless of the scientists' opinion. [...] Mualchin said that seismic hazards were not properly assessed in L'Aquila. [...] "They [the scientists] were conscious of the high risk in the area, and yet did not advise the people to take any precaution whatsoever" he said.

300 people did not die because of their improper assurances. If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time. And even if people took precautions, just as many could have died. People died because of a natural disaster, which cannot be predicted or foretold. I don't care who with what authority says it can or cannot happen, no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.

I don't care who with what authority says it can or cannot happen, no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.

I agree as far as predictions go, at least with the state of science as it stands today, but negligence can be a contributing factor and convey liability to the negligent party. For example, if I built tornado shelters, and my shoddy construction techniques or materials led to the collapse of the structure during a tornado, I could be liable.

>no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.I agreed with you up to that point, Certainly no one should be charged with manslaughter, for not predicting a less than a once in a 100 years event like this. But I do think it is the responsibility of a government to set building codes, and emergency services to a reasonable expectation of natural disasters in the area. And it is the responsibility of those to have solid engineering principals behind

Those people broke with their regular routine of sleeping outside in their car after multiple small tremors, based on the assurances of the seismologists on trial. Those seismologist called that open session to discredit a laboratory tech who was claiming the likelihood of a larger earthquake. The seismologists basically told the people that there was no danger, go drink some wine. If they hadn't called that meeting and gave that direction, those people wouldn't have broken routine, and many of them would have had a much better chance at survival.

What truly scientific mind would say that that it is safe to ignore the tremors that had been happening in the area? Why didn't they say "we have no conclusive evidence of a forthcoming earthquake, but here are some general safety tips". Most likely, they were more interested in discrediting and shaming the laboratory tech who had been warning of a big earthquake. When those who are entrusted with public safety choose ego over public safety, and it causes changes that lead to death, I agree that they should be held accountable.

Read the Nature article [nature.com]. Get the perspective from both sides.

Its most recent seismic tragedy began in October 2008, when dozens of low-magnitude tremors began to hit the city...these tremors continued intermittently over the first three months of 2009...a resident named Giampaolo Giuliani began to make unofficial earthquake predictions on the basis of measurements of radon gas levels...their use as a reliable short-term predictor of earthquakes has never been scientifically proved or accepted...On 30 March, Giuliani says, national civil-protection officials cited him for procurato allarme — essentially instigating public alarm or panic — and forbade him from making any public pronouncements

Six months of tremors. Some guy running around telling everyone there was about to be a big earthquake. Do they ignore him? Kind of sounds like they went too far in saying there was no risk, but I could understand them trying to calm things down.

The case against them is based on negligence. By not considering the worst case scenario and preparing for it, they've been failing the public trust. The expert is testifying that post earthquake 2009, the building codes still are inadequate since they do not consider the worst case scenario if it is an infrequent event. The fact the model they are currently using, was developed in California, and is now recognized by the scientific community as a whole as flawed, to the point where it is no longer taught

300 people did not die because of their improper assurances. If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.

False dichotomy.

The problem is that they spoke with authority saying that there would not be a big quake, when they knew full well that their knowledge didn't go to those lengths. They weren't honest about it. Its really that simple.

This isnt an either/or situation. It wasn't just "no there wont" or "yes there will." The truth was neither, but they chose to say "no there wont."

No, it's not a fraud, it's just like predicting the weather, only probably less accurate with today's knowledge. You can't expect 100% accuracy, or probably even close. It's a good tool to use (because it's better than nothing), but if you get mad at the forecasters/seismologists when the prediction doesn't pan out, or they fail to predict something bad, then you're using the tool wrong and your expectations are too high.

Where I live (the Midwest), it's hard to take meteorologists seriously; the weather is just too damn unpredictable.

So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated. Now if only there were some sort of legal setting in which guilt and innocence could be proven through the presentation of supporting evidence.../sarc

My problem is with the folks who claim these men should remain blameless without even going over the evidence.

Where I live (the Midwest), it's hard to take meteorologists seriously; the weather is just too damn unpredictable.

So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated.

It sounds like they are accused of a third possibility; there was no way to know whether a larger event was coming or not, but they reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about. Actually from reading the article, it sounds like the former Director of Public Safety is the one that said that; the guilt or innocence of the scientists depends (or should depend, at any rate) on whether that was their advice to him.

The former Caltrans seismologist has a point, but I'm not sure it really pertains to this case. Earthquake frequency analysis is a great tool for determining something like insurance rates, where you are trying to figure out how likely it is for an earthquake of x magnitude to occur in y period of time. From a public safety standpoint, the primary concern should be the maximum expected earthquake magnitude, because this is what you need to design your infrastructure to. Frequency analysis does come into play here, as it might not make economic sense to design to the largest earthquake ever recorded (or that there is evidence for), but it offers absolutely no guarantees - just because the largest expected quake is a 6.5, you just had a 6.5 three years ago so on average another shouldn't occur for another three thousand years, doesn't mean that another 6.5 won't occur next year.

The only reassurance the scientists should have offered is that the string of minor earthquakes did not necessarily mean a larger event was on the way, which I realize isn't very reassuring. They had absolutely no way of knowing whether something larger was coming, or whether the string of minor earthquakes was it. If they actually claimed otherwise, then they are guilty.

It sounds like they are accused of a third possibility; there was no way to know whether a larger event was coming or not, but they reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about. Actually from reading the article, it sounds like the former Director of Public Safety is the one that said that; the guilt or innocence of the scientists depends (or should depend, at any rate) on whether that was their advice to him.

Agreed.

The only reassurance the scientists should have offered is that the string of minor earthquakes did not necessarily mean a larger event was on the way, which I realize isn't very reassuring. They had absolutely no way of knowing whether something larger was coming, or whether the string of minor earthquakes was it. If they actually claimed otherwise, then they are guilty.

They did not fail to predict. Well they did but that is not why they are in court.They are there because after many rumblings they assured people that there was no chance of any big quake.They were stating fact like they knew it.They were idiots at best.

I have an in-law who lives in a South American country. He and his wife are facing (entirely bogus) criminal penalties from a private contract lawsuit. It's been dismissed and laughtd out of court every time it comes up before a non-crony-of-plaintiff judge but it gets revived and reallocated. The system is so corrupt that being sentenced to hard time is a possibility from a business collaboration gone bad.

Considering the nation we're discussing is Spain, I think my point is still valid.

I have an in-law who lives in a South American country. He and his wife are facing (entirely bogus) criminal penalties from a private contract lawsuit. It's been dismissed and laughtd out of court every time it comes up before a non-crony-of-plaintiff judge but it gets revived and reallocated. The system is so corrupt that being sentenced to hard time is a possibility from a business collaboration gone bad.

Which nation, if you don't mind? I've been considering visiting (and possibly expatriating to) various South American nations, and I would like to avoid all but the least corrupt of them.

The general consensus is, predicting earthquakes is impossible. Even if you think a "big one" is coming, you don't know if it's minutes or decades away. The timing is impossible to predict. *Sometimes* they get lucky, but it's just that - luck.

The only thing you can do is predict the risk of quakes, and encourage local planners to enforce earthquake proof buildings. In earthquake-prone areas, wooden houses are a good idea, and unreinforced masonry is a death

When an empirical scientist makes a statement like "there is no danger", they mean something like "the level of danger is below threshold X to within margin of error Y". No seismologist would ever seriously say that there's no chance of a serious earthquake even five minutes from now, no matter what all their gathered instrument data and statistics tell them. Statements like "there is no danger" are for public consumption because the public, on the whole, doesn't really have a clue what these people actually do.

This court case is like prosecuting sports commentators for manslaughter because they predicted a victory for the local team, but the local team lost and the crowd rioted and people were killed. Predicting earthquakes that acutely simply isn't their job. Whether they did a good job or not, this trial is a farce. It's just a mob lynching taking place in a courthouse. Some of the heavily publicized (internationally publicized anyway) court cases in Italy recently (such as the Amanda Knox case) seem to fall along those lines. All politics and little real concern for justice, the victims, or the accused.

The case should be decided upon whether a professional opinion, or even one that is concurrent with a majority of professional opinions, can be held to be liable in the case of non-precaution. In that case it would be prudent to always err on the side of safety and give the population the choice to adhere or ignore the advice, but hold no liability for the warning. But to err on the side of catastrophe because you have to due to liability is not going to help anyone. It will only cause mass panics freque

The case should be decided upon whether a professional opinion, or even one that is concurrent with a majority of professional opinions, can be held to be liable in the case of non-precaution.

It's much worse then non-precaution. It's the complete opposite of non-precaution. It's a statement of NO CAUTION IS NEEDED. One that was gave to the public by scientists serving on a public advisory board. People changed their behavior based on that "official statement", and that change in behavior led to the loss of life. Many of those dead would have been sleeping in their cars outside of their medieval, seismically weak homes. By and large they would have survived had those scientists not gave a stateme

This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.

From when he was a young boy growing up in a house on Via Antinori in the medieval heart of this earthquake-prone Italian city, Vincenzo Vittorini remembers the ritual whenever the family felt a seismic tremor overnight. "My father was afraid of earthquakes, so whenever the ground shook, even a little, he would gather us and take us out of the house," he says. "We would walk to a little piazza nearby, and the children — we were four brothers — and my mother would sleep in the car. My father would stand outside, smoking cigarettes with the other fathers, until morning." That, he says, represented the age-old, cautionary "culture" of living in an earthquake zone.

It may be a strange idea if you don't live in an area that is seismically active. However, this was their way of life. They would go out to a piazza [wikipedia.org] and sleep in the car. Much less of a death-trap then the situation you are imagining.

We have quakes where I live all the time, just had a 4 or 5 point a couple days ago. Lesser quakes do NOT mean that a big one is imminent.Does that number seem high to you? It's not really. Remember, these numbers are on a scale (they don't use the richter scale anymore, but I forget the name of the current one.) so each point is worth a lot more than the previous point.

Also, the geologic structures counts for a lot as well. We have oodles of faults here, and those help to dissipate the energy of any quake

The risk was greater than normal, but still small. Earthquake swarms like occured in L'Aquila happen all the time. Instead of being 1 in 100000 or so like normal, it was 1 in 200 or so. Still small. Do you think the town should be evacuated 200 times for every earthquake? That's an impossibility. I think the scientists could have communicated that there was some risk better, but suggesting evacuation is ridiculous.

Do you know who is actually to blame? The local councils for non-existent enforcement

if other seismologists are saying they would have gave the warning, doesn't that tell you something?
perhaps we need competing seismologists, you know, so people can get a second opinion.

Interesting that you would raise that thought, seeing as they had a lab tech who was forecasting earthquake based on (IIRC) radon levels. The scientists on trial apparently were convened to refute his warnings. The lab tech had incorrectly predicted earthquakes before, and the advisory panel (of scientists) were allegedly there to calm the public. The official government sanctioned scientists gave an all clear, go drink wine, don't worry about it statement, which in turn led to dead people.

The question there is, does the scientist whose method worked that time and predicted the earthquake get charged with manslaughter as well? After all, if he hadn't made inaccurate predictions so many times in the past, he might have been taken seriously this time.

Who is to blame for the loss of the sheep? The boy who cried wolf, or the townspeople who didn't come to help him fend it off because he'd cried wolf so many times?

Earthquake prediction is hard. It's unsurprising that mistakes happen. Lynching scientists for this sort of thing is not going to make it any better in future. It will just lead all seismologists working in Italy to always predict disaster in the future.

I have no doubts of the difficulty of predicting earthquakes. I wouldn't fault the scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. This really has nothing to do with actually predicting earthquakes. It's about "the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population." (from this article) [nature.com]

They said "no danger" in area KNOWN for it's seismic reputation. This caused people to ignore basic safety proced

It's my understanding that "no danger" is a translated and possibly paraphrased version of what a mouthpiece said to the press and that what the mouthpiece said was a paraphrased version of what the scientists said. If someone can show a well-translated transcript of exactly what was said in their meetings, I might feel differently, but until then, it looks a lot like they're being lynched for nothing. The people of Aquila are just making a human sacrifice to the earthquake gods.

But this isn't a case of your mechanic making a mistake fixing your car. This is the mechanic doing your yearly vehicle inspection going through the checklist and checking everything off as safe based on the guidelines. They didn't find any play on the wheels, or anything the standard guidelines say is a problem. There was a peculiar harmonic vibration similar to, but not exactly the same as, others they've felt before that weren't a problem. They passed the car. The next day, the front wheel fell off on th

Bullshit. If you start charging every negligent mechanic with manslaughter then no one will want the job. You have to understand that everyone makes mistakes and if screwing up 1 in a 100 jobs leads to manslaughter charges then no one will be willing to do the work. Then everyone's car will break down.

I think the end result of this is that there won't be anyone willing to work as a seismologist in Italy any more, so any more earthquakes (which do happen, they're in an active seismic zone there) will simply be a big surprise.

An Italian scientist, Giacchino Giuliani says he tried to warm the people in the earthquake devestated city of L'Aquila that a massive disaster was imminent only to be told he was an "imbecile".

An alarmed Giacchino Giuliani reportedly strapped loudspeakers to cars and vans and drove around the city in late March warning people that an earthquake was imminent due to increased activity involving radon ga

No, it's like they got in several small accidents, and asked a mechanic "Do all these little accidents mean a big one is coming?" and then suing him because he said "no, that's crazy" but they DID get in a big accident later. They are on trial for saying that little earthquakes don't indicate a big one is coming. This is totally true, but because little earthquakes ALSO don't mean that a big one ISN'T coming people died that might have fled the city without that reassurance. Similar to how people die in

The problem is in part a scientific one, Mualchin said. The Italian scientists based their analysis on the frequency of earthquakes in the area. This is known as the probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA), a method that is state of the art in many countries, but that, in Mualchin’s view, systematically underestimates seismic hazard because it does not consider extreme and rare events.

"Frequency is not important, what really matters is the largest earthquake we can expect, the strongest one that has happened in the past. Risk prevention should be based on that," he said. This is the philosophy behind deterministic seismic-hazard analysis, a method that Mualchin says has been mostly abandoned by the scientific community, to the point that younger seismologists do not even learn about it.

So they were using what is commonly considered a "state of the art" model? I'm guessing the prosecutors happened to find a guy in the United States that apparently even admits to adhering to models that are less commonly accepted than the model that the scientists used. I wonder if he's got an ax to grind now that his preferred model is no longer taught? I don't know anything about these two models but this sounds like infighting and I'm sure it's really easy for Mualchin to step in after the fact and show that his "abandoned" model would have worked better in this particular case. Any seismologists here that can speak to the current research in earthquake prediction and the actual effectiveness of these two models?

I don't know for sure, but from my listening to NPR and alternative radio seismology and hurricane prediction models are a crapshoot. They're actually worse than chance would give in the same circumstances.

According to TFA, the scientists (in their defense) claim to have told the official that there was no increased or decreased risk because they cannot make a definite prediction. The official is the one who turned that into "no risk at all because little quakes release energy and prevent big ones, drink some wine and relax!" Maybe they're lying now to cover their asses. But the big news in TFA is that this official and his boss arranged this press conference to "reassure the public there is no risk" before they even consulted the accused scientists, so I'd tend to believe the scientists that this official twisted their words or outright lied.

Or don't make broad statements that you can't guarantee are correct and when being wrong can cost lives?

There is no way to guarantee that it is safe. Unfortunately the only safe response for the scientists and seismologists would be "Yes, there is always a risk of a deadly earthquake", which would result in no one ever believing them when it was true.

That is exactly waht engineers do every day. They build things, make mistakes and when nature test the building and it fails when within design parameters the engineer is liable. The issue is the enginner stated the building wiuld not fail under certain conditions and if it does the engineer is liable.

is that saying "We do not have reason to believe that there will be a catastrophic earthquake" or "It is not likely that there will be a catastrophic earthquake" is NOT the same as saying "There is no danger of a catastrophic earthquake".

What happened was the scientists came to the former consensus in the meeting, then the politician interpreted it as the latter, and then the politician relayed his version to the people.

IMHO, blaming the scientists is fucking absurd. I think that of the people indicted in this mess, the only one who is at fault is the politician. The most guilty people in this are the idiots who took action concerning their own safety based on their interpretation of what a politician said and against their better instincts.

What got the scientists in hot water was that, upon hearing the politician's interpretation of their findings, they did not correct him. Had they spoken up the misinformation would have been corrected and the people would not have the false sence of security.

In other words the political appointees feel their jobs are more important than people's lives. It is called doing what is right to protect lives and if a scientist does not have enough backbone to do that they should not be scientists consulting on safety issues.

IMHO, blaming the scientists is fucking absurd. I think that of the people indicted in this mess, the only one who is at fault is the politician. The most guilty people in this are the idiots who took action concerning their own safety based on their interpretation of what a politician said and against their better instincts.

Saying the only one at fault is the politician, but the most guilty are the idiot people, doesn't really make sense. And suggesting people should trust their instincts above what they perceived to be a scientist's report is risky territory. Though knowing when to distrust a politician gets easier with age.

To simplify a lot: people act on instincts, experience, news, and many other notions. Profitable news edits quotes from politicians. Politicians edit reports from scientists. Scientists produce reports bas

Things falling on people kill people. From the photos in TFA it looks like the're using unreinforced masonry. This is deadly in earthquake zones, but this situation has more to do with local building codes and enforcement than seismic potential.

In the current state of earthquake prediction, the actual prediction of *when* an earthquake will occur is not all that reliable. However the prediction of how much ground acceleration can be expected from potential seismic activity is reliable and building codes can be created accordingly.

It's impossible to predict an earthquake. It's a random event, and science has discovered no indication that any event proceeds an earthquake of a certain magnitude. The closest we can get on a fault is an average return cycle which is absolutely an average and has no guarantee of being even within 2 standard deviations of the average. In volcanic areas it's a bit different in that earthquakes tend to cluster around magma events, BUT again there is no way to predi

From the photos in TFA it looks like the're using unreinforced masonry. This is deadly in earthquake zones, but this situation has more to do with local building codes and enforcement than seismic potential.

The buildings also look quite old, as in centuries, not decades. It's not like people go and update all the buildings in the country every time the building code changes. It's quite common in Europe to live in a house that was built before the US or Australia were even found by Europeans. My weatherboard home in Australia is about 70yrs old and by our standards that is ancient, but from a European perspective it's practically brand new.

First problem is suing the weather guy for unnecessarily ruining your plans. Predictions sometimes fail because they are predictions. They are not statements of facts. They are guesses based on best effort analysis of avaliable data.
You can make the same case in reverse. The weatherman said it was going to snow yesterday and the day before that and it never did. So today when he said snow again I did not believe him and as a result I did not get up early, got snowed in and lost my job for failing to

First problem is suing the weather guy for unnecessarily ruining your plans. Predictions sometimes fail because they are predictions. They are not statements of facts. They are guesses based on best effort analysis of avaliable data.

Speaking of the 'weather guy', there's the infamous case of Michael Fish announcing on British TV that there wasn't going to be a hurricane that night... followed by not-quite hurricane force winds that caused widespread damage and killed a bunch of people. Even though he was technically correct, the damage might not have been so bad if people hadn't been watching him on the TV news and had been prepared for such a storm.

While I agree that jailing these people in this case seems crazy, no-one should be anno

But California scientists always say, "A major earthquake is a definite possibility." Still, I can't believe a Californian would go over to Italy to put people in jail for 12 years over a missed prediction. Is this guy paid? It's hard to come up with any other explanation.

I can not remember a single earthquake in California, whether it killed people or not, that was predicted by California seismologists. Maybe after the next big quake in CA we can have some Italian scientists testify against the California scientists!

Did California seismologists state that there was "no danger" from an earthquake? Did California seismologists cause people to ignore commonly accepted safety routines by their statements or actions? Maybe the next time you try to draw similarities between two situations, you can read a little and not be so ignorant! We can at least expect you to read the caption under the pictures, can't we?

A panel of seismologists who met just days before the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy are on trial over their reassurances to the public.

Did California seismologists state that there was "no danger" from an earthquake? Did California seismologists cause people to ignore commonly accepted safety routines by their statements or actions? Maybe the next time you try to draw similarities between two situations, you can read a little and not be so ignorant! We can at least expect you to read the caption under the pictures, can't we?

Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

I sourced my comments from the links in the summary. I'm not finding that quote in either of the linked articles. I searched a few words from the quote without success. Care to credit your source? Lack of source means lack of context, which allows all sorts of questions to be raised. Lack of source also allows the question: "Is this quote even real?"

Was this statement made before or after the statement of "no danger"?
Is he simply stating that he said this before the statement of "no danger", or was he

Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

Ah, I see you are referencing an article [nature.com] I used in some of my other comments. Your quote was from the minutes of the meeting. Perhaps you neglected to read this tidbit:

The commission did not issue its usual formal statement, and the minutes of the meeting were not even prepared, says Boschi, until after the earthquake had occurred.

The minutes were not even prepared until AFTER the earthquake occurred. Really easy to add quotes to the minutes of a meeting AFTER the shit hits the fan.

In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L'Aquila was "certainly normal" and posed "no danger", adding that "the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it's a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy". When prompted by a journalist who said, "So we should have a nice glass of wine," De Bernardinis replied "Absolutely", and urged locals to have a glass of Montepulciano.

The suggestion that repeated tremors were favourable because they 'unload', or discharge, seismic stress and reduce the probability of a major quake seems to be scientifically incorrect.

It's one thing to fail to predict an earthquake. However, they didn't fail to predict an earthquake, to the contrary, they predicted that there was "no danger". Basically, no earthquake.

Now consider this: had the scientists told people that there is always a risk of earthquakes, what preparations would the victims have made that might have saved their lives? I'll tell you: precisely zero.

Wrong again. The same article [nature.com] points out the routine the residents in the area had of leaving the homes when a small tremor occurred, and sleeping outside. Those residents, pacified by the "no danger" statement of the panel, ignored the tremors and lost their life.

The same article [nature.com] points out the routine the residents in the area had of leaving the homes when a small tremor occurred, and sleeping outside. Those residents, pacified by the "no danger" statement of the panel, ignored the tremors and lost their life.

By that logic, since the resident know for certain that there's always a danger of earthquakes in Italy, the residents should move into their cars permanently.

The moral/legal responsibility in all this hangs on the questions surrounding motives, such as;
Did the scientists conspire to mislead the public to stroke their egos or whatever?
Was it an intellectually honest risk assessment that just happened to be wrong?
Were scientific caveats dropped by the politician, edited by the media, etc? If so, wa